RE LAPANATI YULAS

CACV 620/2020

[2021] HKCA 810

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 620 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1959 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon B Chu J (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1)  The appeal

1. This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2)  Factual background

2.1 The applicant is a national of Indonesia.  She came to Hong Kong as a foreign domestic helper. She did not return to Indonesia upon the expiry of her employment contract and she overstayed. She raised her non-refoulement claim by written submission on 21 May 2014.

2.2 The basis of the applicant’s claim is that she would be harmed or killed by her husband, parents or villagers as they have on a number of occasions physically attacked her.

3)  The Director’s Decision

3. The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s torture claim on 29 December 2017.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk (‘BOR 2’) as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

4.1 The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’) on 11 January 2018. After a hearing held on 4 June 2018, the applicant’s claim was dismissed by the Board on 12 September 2018.

4.2 The Board held that the applicant did not provide an entirely credible account. She has been consistent on some aspects while being inconsistent with other aspects. The Board found that the applicant was inconsistent with aspects that were significant. It held that the applicant was unable to explain how the husband was able to locate her more than 2000 km away. There was inconsistent account of the threats that the husband purported to inflict on her parents. The Board does not accept that the husband travelled long distance to harass the applicant’s parents. Internal relocation was possible. The Board does not accept that the applicant will be harmed in Indonesia just because she was Catholic. There were no substantial grounds showing the applicant will be subjected to torture if refouled.

5)  Decision of the Judge

5.1 The applicant filed her Form 86, seeking for leave for judicial review on 18 September 2018. In her supporting affirmation, the applicant repeated her claim that her life was in danger.

5.2 On 12 November 2020, the Judge held that there were no grounds provided from the applicant on her intended judicial review challenge. He held that there was an absence of showing of any error from the Board. There was no reasonable basis to challenge the decision of the Board.   

6)  Grounds of appeal

6.1 Doing the best that we could read from the applicant’s notice of appeal, she stated that the Board disregarded her dangerous situation.

6.2 Doing the best that we could read from the applicant’s written submissions, the applicant repeated factual allegations of her case. She stated that it was ‘funny’ that the Board rejected her case. She asked for justice.

7)  Our view

7.1 We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits.  The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review.  An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced.  The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong: see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39]. 

7.2 It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Deputy Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.

7.3 We see no basis to disturb the Deputy Judge’s Decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.